It is easy to look at an undeveloped piece of land and conclude that it isn't contributing very much to the financial health of a community.
After all, a forest, farm, or conservation property may generate relatively little in property taxes compared with a subdivision containing dozens of new homes. From that perspective, development would seem almost automatically to be good for a town's finances.
But there is another side to the equation.
For decades, communities around the country have used studies known as Cost of Community Services to examine not simply how much tax revenue different kinds of land generate, but how much they cost a community in return.
The distinction is important.
New homes generate property taxes. But they also create continuing demands for municipal services: schools, roads and road maintenance, police and fire protection, new fire houses, emergency services, snow removal, utilities such as water and sewer, and other public infrastructure.
Forests, farms and other open lands generally require little if any of those services.
As a result, Cost of Community Services studies have repeatedly challenged a seemingly obvious assumption: more development and a larger tax base do not necessarily mean a stronger municipal balance sheet.
In fact, the Massachusetts studies show that looking only at the additional tax revenue from development can give an incomplete picture: what matters to a community is not simply the revenue a land use generates, but the relationship between that revenue and the municipal services it requires.
This doesn't mean development is undesirable. Communities need homes and businesses, and thoughtful development is essential to a healthy town. Nor does it mean that every acre of open space should remain undeveloped.
It simply means that the economics are more complicated than the tax bill alone suggests.
Value That Doesn't Appear on a Tax Bill
There is another complication.
Many of the things open land provides never appear in a municipal budget.
A forest absorbs rainfall and slows stormwater before it reaches roads, streams and lakes. Trees protect soils and help filter water. Wetlands store floodwater. Forests moderate temperatures, capture carbon and provide wildlife habitat. Protected landscapes offer opportunities for walking, recreation and quiet enjoyment without requiring the infrastructure of a developed recreational facility.
If those natural systems are lost, replacing even some of their functions can be extraordinarily expensive. Once lost, they may never be replaceable.
That makes conservation land unusual. It may produce relatively modest tax revenue, but it can also provide substantial public benefits while requiring relatively little in municipal services.
At Laurel Ridge, we see that relationship firsthand. The reserve protects forest, wetlands and wildlife habitat , including NHESP Priority Habitats of Rare and Endangered Species adjacent to Whitehall Reservoir while also helping protect the watershed surrounding one of Hopkinton's important water resources. Its trails provide opportunities for hiking, birdwatching, photography and quiet reflection, yet the land remains privately owned and maintained.
There is no simple formula that can place a dollar value on all of those benefits.
And perhaps that is part of the problem.
We are very good at measuring the economic value of what can be built on a piece of land. We are not nearly as good at accounting for the economic value of what the land is already doing.
Cost of Community Services studies offer one useful reminder: when considering the value of open space, the question shouldn't simply be “How much tax revenue could this land generate if it were developed?”
We should also ask:
“What does this land already provide — and what would it cost the community to replace it?”